On 12 February 2004 I sold my car.
On 19th February 2004 I was walking the Aonach Eagach Ridge in
Glencoe. At 13:20pm I was captured on digital camera on the summit of
Am Bodach by a friend.
At precisely the same moment, 13:20:21pm my former car was captured by
a Transport for London digital camera on Tower Bridge Road, entering
the Congestion Charge Zone.
When I sold the car, all documentation was filled in correctly,
however, I gave the wrong portion to the new owner, and returned the
wrong portion to DVLA. I was unaware of the mistake for several
months.
The car was still registered to me, so I was liable for the congestion
charge.
I wrote to TfL giving my representations, which they rejected, but
gave me 28 days to give further representations, and an appeal form
for the Parking and Traffic Appeals' Service (PATS).
I sent off further representations and the appeal form. TfL wrote
back saying that as the case was subject to appeal they would not
listen to my representation. PATS wrote to say that all evidence must
be sent to them by 28 June.
In the meantime, I was writing to DVLA to find out what was going on.
At that time I was unaware that I has sent to them the wrong portion
of the registration document.
I received notice of two further parking infringements, one in
Canterbury and one in Bromley.
DVLA sent me a copy of the registration document, the portion I should
have returned. The date of sale had been tippexed out and the address
of the new owner had been altered to that of Catford Bus Garage.
I wrote again to DVLA explaining that the name and address had been
altered, and they accepted this, and sent me a letter dated 30 June
2004, saying that they had changed their records to show the change of
ownership to 12 February 2004.
Brilliant! I was able to deal with Bromley and Canterbury with little
problem. However, PATS refused the evidence as it was beyond their
time limit.
On 19 January 2005 I heard from PATS. My appeal had been rejected,
and I had no automatic right of appeal against the decision. I could
request a review, or apply for a judicial review.
I knew a judicial review would be out of the question, costing ££££s.
But I applied for a review on the grounds of new evidence, not
available on 28 June 2004. They accepted that I had grounds for a
review.
I also wrote to TfL explaining that they had given me 28 days to make
final representations, and then suspended that while the case went to
appeal, with 10 days remaining. Now that the appeal was over, and
lost, I still had 10 days to make representations to them. This I
did, with the single piece of evidence from DVLA showing that they had
ammended their records to show that I disposed of the vehicle on 12
February 2004.
TfL wrote back promptly and on 28 January 2005 said that they accepted
my representations, and that no further action would be taken against
me.
A sigh of relief.
Imagine my surprise then, when I got home from work yesterday to find
a letter on my doormat from PATS. It said that the review assessor
found the new evidence irrelevant and that I owed TfL £80 and this
would increase to £120 if not paid within 28 days.
What a mess!
TfL no longer want the money. PATS insist it must be paid.
What could happen when I don't pay?